Pakistan on Monday told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that India is using the court as a stage for political theatre, adding that solid evidences were provided regarding alleged spy Kulbhushan Jadhav's 'activities'.
Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi while presenting Islamabad's stance in the ICJ on death sentence handed to Jadhav said that the former naval officer entered into Islamabad through Iran using fake passport.
He told the court that Pakistan had given India all information regarding Jadhav's investigation, but didn't receive any response from New Delhi.
Qureshi claimed that Jadhav was given 150 days to clarify himself and argued that the ICJ must not give relief to the alleged Indian spy.
"India is fielding arguments based on misrepresentation and contradiction. It didn't present evidences in the International Court of Justice provided by Pakistan," he said.
Pakistan argued in the ICJ that it will use all legal resources to safeguard its people and land.
More From This Section
"It is written in an agreement that every country will see the matter of arrested person in accordance with merit," Qureshi said.
The Pakistani side consists of six individuals, which included Moazzam Ahmad Khan, Ambassador of Pakistan to UAE as Agent, Mohammad Faisal, DG (South Asia & SAARC) as Agent, Syed Faraz Hussain Zaidi, Counsellor of the Pakistan Embassy in the Netherlands as Adviser, Q.C. Khawar Qureshi as Counsel, Asad Rahim Khan as Junior Counsel and Joseph Dyke as Legal Assistant.
Earlier, joint secretaries at the Indian External Affairs Ministry, Dr Deepak Mittal, Dr VD Sharma, and Indian counsel Harish Salve completed their statements before the judges.
India argued that immediate steps must be taken to stop Pakistan from carrying out the death sentence of former Indian naval officer Jadhav.
Mittal, who argued first, said that Pakistan had held Jadhav on concocted charges adding that his human rights was "thrown to the winds".
Sharma said India has been seeking consular access since it was informed of Jadhav's arrest adding that request for defense a lawyer was denied and visa to his parents was also not given despite repeated pleas.
"India and Pakistan are both parties to convention, hence are under court's jurisdiction. Consular access was denied repeatedly and Islamabad didn't provide any document to India despite requests," he said.
"There is an immediate threat that execution would be carried out before court can decide the case on its merit," he added.
Noted lawyer Harish Salve, representing India, told the court that India couldn't arrange for defence aide to Jadhav due to the denial of consular access by Pakistan.
He said India made innumerable requests for consular access but Pakistan refused to provide documents relating to the case and consular access to him.
"Jadhav was framed on confessional statements extracted from him when he was in Pakistan's military custody," Salve said.
Demanding provisional measures to stay Jadhav's execution, Harish Salve gave instances as to when the International Court of Justice ordered provisional relief to death row convicts pending trial in the ICJ.
He told the court that it is imperative to prevent irreparable damage to Jadhav's rights.
Refuting the allegations levelled on Jadhav by Pakistan, Salve argued that India's case is that throughout his incarceration, Jadhav was denied consular access.
Salve told the court that Jadhav's tape was doctored.
Asserting that India relies on the Vienna Convention, Salve argued that the Vienna Convention doesn't provide any exception as to providing consular access.
Salve citing Nicaragua, Germany and Mexico's examples said that India seeks annulment of death sentence announced by Pakistan's military court for Jadhav.
"Pakistan's conduct violates the Vienna Convention. The more serious the charge, the greater the need for procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused," Salve told the court.
Salve raised doubts over Pakistan military court's impartiality, saying that Jadhav's appeal was heard by a military court, presided over by a two-star general, whereas his death sentence was confirmed by a four-star general.